Examination of Witnesses (Questions 94-99)
MR JIM
MURPHY MP, MICHAEL
DAVENPORT AND
DAMIAN THWAITES
18 JULY 2007
Q94 Chairman: Good afternoon
everybody. May I ask members of the public to please switch off
their mobile phones? Thank you.
Mr. Murphy, welcome to you and your colleagues,
Mr. Thwaites and Mr. Davenport. As the new Minister for Europe,
you have obviously come to your post at a particularly interesting
time, and we would like to welcome you to your first appearance
before the Committee. As you know, we have for some months been
carrying out an inquiry into Russia and Britain's relations with
Russia. Clearly, this is a rather difficult week for our bilateral
relations. Can I ask you, in the light of recent events, how you
would characterise our relationship with Russia at this time?
Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Chairman,
for the opportunity to appear before you today to give evidence
as part of your ongoing consideration of our relations with Russia.
In direct response to your point, I think our relationships with
Russia are strong and have been for some time for a number of
reasons. First, in terms of the mutual benefit of economic co-operation,
there is the fact that, in 2005, UK exports to Russia were £3
billion. In 2006, the UK was the single biggest investor for the
first three quarters of the year. There is really substantial
UK investment in Russia. Additionally, of course, there are economic
interests in the City of London, in terms of Russian investors.
So there is a clear economic benefit to a positive and strong
relationship with Russia. We also have shared interests in a number
of international issues, not least Iran, the Middle East peace
process and the future of Kosovo. So our relationship is a strong
one, but it is one, as you rightly say, Mr. Chairman, that has
been under quite proper scrutiny over the past week. Put simply,
it is the UK Government's very strong view that the murder of
one of our citizens on the streets of our capital city is a dreadful
crime. It led to one of our citizens dying a horrible and painful
slow death, to many hundreds of others being tested for poisoning
and to the citizens of 18 other European Union member states also
being tested. Again put simply, we do not believe, despite the
efforts of our independent judicial process to achieve the extradition
of one individual, that the Russians took our concerns with the
seriousness that they deserved, and they did not co-operate sufficiently,
and have not co-operated sufficiently, in this crucial process.
As a consequence, we have taken what we think are proportionate
measures. We have no ambitions towards a macho response. We have
taken a considered, measured response, which we think is appropriate
in these circumstances.
Q95 Chairman: May I ask
you about that response? The Foreign Secretary made a statement
saying that we would expel four Russian diplomats, review the
extent of our co-operation with Russia and suspend visa facilitation
negotiations. May I ask you about that review of future co-operation?
What areas would it cover?
Mr. Murphy: Primarily, in addition
to the expulsion of the individuals, it is, as you rightly say,
Mr. Chairman, about visa regulations. We were in the process of
discussing improvements in the administration of visas, which
would primarily have affected officials initially. That has been
put into suspension. We have also put our position in respect
of a similar set of arrangements for visas that Moscow already
applies to the United Kingdom. Perhaps it would be helpful to
say that the UK receives more than 120,000 applications for visas
through Moscow, the vast majority of which are successful. However,
this suspension of co-operation is not about the regular travellers—the
visitors, tourists and business people—but about applications
made by Russia's Government authorities. That is the suspension
that has been put in place.
Q96 Chairman: Will the review affect
some other areas? For example, the Committee was in Moscow about
four weeks ago, and I visited a facility where the Global Partnership
is funding improved security around a civil nuclear reactor. Can
you assure us that areas of co-operation such as on that or on
climate change or co-operation on common efforts against terrorism
will not be damaged by this response?
Mr. Murphy: The Foreign Secretary
said in his statement to the House that this is a precise response
to the failure to co-operate on a serious crime. Our response
is intended to be measured, and I think that it is largely accepted
as being measured. Our European Union partners acknowledge it
as such, and it is intended to say to the Russians how seriously
we take this matter. I can say additionally that it is not our
intention for it to affect the type of issues that you have commented
on, which I am sure we will touch on later in our proceedings.
However, specifically on counter-terrorism co-operation, we work
strategically and operationally with the Russians, and will continue
to do so when it is clearly in the UK's national interest and
our wider interests. For example, we will continue to work together
at the United Nations on the Counter-terrorism Committee, and
at the UN on the Sanctions Committee on the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
That is very important work, which we will continue. As I say,
this is a precise and measured response to a very serious crime
and the lack of Russian co-operation and it addresses how seriously
we take this issue.
Q97 Mr. Hamilton: Minister,
are you prepared for possible retaliatory non-co-operation by
Russia in response?
Mr. Murphy: The proper response
from the Russians is the extradition of the individual identified
by independent UK authorities as the suspect in this dreadful
murder. That is the proper response. In fact, if that had been
the response to the initial request, perhaps we would not be having
this conversation today.
Q98 Mr. Hamilton: But
the Russians have made it clear that they are not prepared to
do that, so are you prepared for them simply to retaliate in any
other way?
Mr. Murphy: We still believe that
the Russians should extradite. In terms of what the Russians do
next, clearly, they have indicated their attitude through spokespersons
both in Moscow and in London. It is certainly our intention, through
this process, to emphasise that we still see Russia as a strong
ally on important issues, and a country with which we have important
bilateral and multilateral arrangements. It is our certainly our
intention, as we go through this process, to conclude it. That
remains the case. In terms of speculation about the Russian
response, I do not think that it would be helpful for me or the
Committee to enter into that, but we are clear that the action
that we have taken is the absolutely appropriate action, and many
other member states in the European Union have acknowledged that
over the last 24 hours.
Q99 Mr. Hamilton: You
have made it clear what you want the Russians to do and I am sure
many would agree with you. But do you want to see disengagement
by UK business and UK investors, in respect of investing in Russia,
to put further pressure on the Russian authorities? Or are you
content simply with putting pressure on Russian officials?
Mr. Murphy: I do not think that
would be helpful at all. The UK's national and strategic interest
is served by continued UK investment in Russia and, indeed, Russian
investment in the United Kingdom. So it is not in the UK's interests
for that to happen. It is not an initiative and not a process
that we would seek to initiate at all. As I say, our approach
is tightly focused around the measures that we have announced
and we would not wish, nor seek to, extend it to the issues raised
by the Chairman or yourself.
|
